Abramson out as NYT editor, Baquet replaces her

Hey, I'm willing to move back to New York.

If Jim can help me get in with the Times, Moddy with SI, and Double Down with ESPN, that would be a good start!

I have great, one-step, espresso machines -- perfect for a break room -- available. McKinsey has four of them in their three floor office.

Surely you guys could all use them. I'll give you a friends and family discount, and get the price down to $16,000 per machine.

 

Done! But you have to join the NYT newspaper guild. Sorry.

 

Re: Abramson out and NYT editor, Baquet replaces her

A Quick Tour Of The New York Times’ Twitter Graveyard

There are dozens of heavily followed, high-volume NYT staffers with excellent Twitter accounts. There are also plenty of ghost towns, monuments to the best intentions of the papers’ less tech-savvy staffers. And there are eggs. Oh, the eggs! A graveyard of egg profiles.

In rounding up this tour of the Times’ Twitter Graveyard I had a few, very fast and very loose rules for consideration. You are eligible for the graveyard if:

- You haven’t tweeted in a little over two months.
- You have fewer than 20 total tweets.
- You have an egg as your profile picture. No egg was spared.

Let’s go for a walk!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/a-quick-tour-of-the-new-york-times-twitter-graveyard#4cq2e8t

 

https://gigaom.com/2014/09/29/does-it-matter-that-some-new-york-times-editors-and-writers-dont-tweet-yes-and-no/

Umm, really?

Sharing is caring.

The flipside of the argument is that Twitter is wholly reliant on its user-generated content. Without it, Twitter goes to the Friendster graveyard, where it is likely headed anyway. If Twitter isn't paying me for my content generation, why should I or anyone else post original, unique content to it that doesn't generate money for me or my employer?

And let's not forget that Twitter is a time suck. A huge one and that takes away from the time I have to generate content, which is why I'm getting paid in the first place.

 

Twitter ain't going anywhere.

News-wise, it might be the most important conveyer belt out there.

That's separate from a media outlet trying to make money.

But that's not on Twitter. That's on media outlets having no clue on how to monetize news. Stacking digital dimes sure as hell didn't work.

 

http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/dean-baquets-response-beware-creating-a-new-journalism-priesthood/

 

Read that, thought of sportswriting and first thought I had was that the analytics devotees are the new priesthood of this toy dept. of journalism.

 

How many times have we read on here about how people will go to great lengths to find ways around paywalls and such?

By and large, media outlets offer a pretty good bargain on the news they offer --- typically a whole month for, say, the price of one cup of horse piss at a stadium --- and yet the great majority of people respond in two ways:

1) Find any way around the paywall to take the news for free.

2) Go somewhere else where the news can be obtained for free.

If a store is constantly having its shelves shoplifted while at the same time some of its competitors are giving things away for free, it's not entirely fair to say "They have no clue how to monetize their products."

 

I didn't invent the Internet.

I can't blame people for wanting information for free.

Maybe newspapers need to go the SABR route and find eggheads who can figure out the everlasting gobstopper of metrics.

Maybe it's as simple as this: Instead of hoping a reader stays on a page at least 5 seconds and scrolls over 50% of the ad (what a funny way to measure reader participation), how about the rate clock begins the moment someone goes to Trentonian.com. Give readers a full run of the joint for free, as many stories as they want to read, and measure how much time they stay on the site. So if I were to go to Trentonian.com right now and read 6 stories, that's 10 minutes at least, probably 15 or 20 -- set the rate that accounts for those 15 or 20 minutes time instead of the amount of time I'm on any particular story that I might click out of after 19 seconds. Charge advertisers for overall time a reader spends on the site, not on the time he/she spends on a single page. All ads are the same size, all advertisers pay the same rate. (That part might need a little tinkering because is Mom & Pop McDiner more important than Joe Jablonski Car Dealership?)

Newspapers have tried tried tried, failed failed failed. Not sure I've seen this approach. I don't know if this approach is kosher, either, but it's an idea.

 

Then the store should hire better security and put out a product that is better than the competitors are giving out for free.

 

Having an impenetrable paywall doesn't magically make advertising rates go up. Without that, you can charge whatever you want for the news and you'll still fail.

 

It is a better product, aside from the Opinion section. Who are we kidding?

When some Web site can just steal half a story, put it in italics, and throw in a cursory link as "credit," the product is being stolen.

You're right about security. But it's a little like teachers in the classroom trying to look out for the good students in schools where most of the kids have absent or poor parents. This is where postmodern relativity got us.